Issuu on Google+

International Research Collaboration in UK Higher Education Institutions

Colin McCaig, Sue Drew, Dave Marsden, Pegg Haughton, John McBride, Denise McBride, BenWillis and Claire Wolstenholme Centre for Education and Inclusion Research and Centre for Research and Evaluation, Sheffield Hallam University DIUS Research Report 08 08


International Research Collaboration in UK Higher Education Institutions

Colin McCaig, Sue Drew, Dave Marsden, Peggy Haughton, John McBride, Denise McBride, Ben Willis and Claire Wolstenholme Centre for Education and Inclusion Research and Centre for Research and Evaluation, Sheffield Hallam University

DIUS Research Report 08 08 ISBN 978 1 84478 996 2 Š Sheffield Hallam University 2008 The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.


Contents Summary.....................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................5 2 Methods....................................................................................................................5 3 Responses................................................................................................................6 4 Main findings from the survey 4.1 Strategic approach......................................................................................8 4.2 Operational structures and processes .....................................................16 4.3 Recording information about international research collaborations..........29 4.4 The uses and distribution of information...................................................37 5 Conclusions............................................................................................................40 Appendix I Introductory letter to HEIs........................................................................43 Appendix II Further Tables ........................................................................................44 Appendix III Questionnaire .......................................................................................88

1


2


Summary The aim of this research was to reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor and coordinate research collaboration between their institutions and those abroad, to identify institutional roles or committees that monitor and coordinate such international research links, and to identify the processes that monitor or record such links. This report is based on the findings of a survey of all 165 HE institutions in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in 2007. There were 127 useable responses which is 77% of all HEIs. There was little reportable variation between the responses from individual countries (mostly because there were insufficient data from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) however analysis by type and size of institution revealed variable patterns of activity. There was a very high level of response from both pre- and post-92 HEIs of over 80% although of the specialist institutions/colleges of higher education, only two thirds responded to the questionnaire. Large and medium HEIs (92% and 80%) were far more likely to respond than small HEIs (59%). HEIs have a considerable amount of international research collaboration (IRC) across all the identified forms of IRC, for example three-quarters of responding HEIs have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies or by UK public bodies. In addition, 86% of HEIs report unfunded research collaborations with overseas academic colleagues, often involving postgraduate research where students are located overseas and unfunded research where individual academics collaborate with overseas colleagues. For many institutions, particularly the smaller HEIs and those specialist institutions, unfunded international research collaboration may be encouraged to raise institutional prestige, improve individual academic reputations or to foster the development of funded IRC in the future. For all HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC. Almost all HEIs have a research strategy, two thirds have an internationalisation strategy but less than half have a combined strategy. Internationalisation seems to be more important to pre-92 institutions than other types of HEI and they are more likely to have a strategy that combines internationalisation and research. Most HEIs have a Pro-Vice Chancellor (PVC) responsible for research and over half have a PVC responsible for research and internationalisation, but only a quarter have PVCs responsible for both areas. Pre-92s are more likely to have PVCs responsible for internationalisation and Specialist Institutions/General Colleges (SI/GC) least likely to have PVCs responsible for research. Smaller and specialist institutions are more likely to centralise responsibility. The larger the institution the more likely it is to have committees at school, department or faculty level dealing with research and to have separate committees dealing with postgraduate research, and that this is general across HEI types. Most such committees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent.

3


The recording of IRC information is more likely to occur at central level if it is related to income; otherwise, IRC information is likely to be held at more local levels. This is reflected in the recording of information on unfunded research collaborations, which is recorded more carefully by specialised institutions than other kinds. Less than half of responding HEIs hold information on where international research collaborations are taking place centrally; only a quarter collate and report on such information and a fifth do not record the information at all. However, this information is generally retained at school, department or faculty level where it is not held centrally.

4


1. Introduction This report looks at the responses to a survey of institutions' processes for monitoring and co-ordinating international research collaboration (IRC). The overarching aim of the research is to reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor and coordinate within their own institutions any research collaboration that takes place between the institution and those abroad. Our survey was designed to identify in institutions roles or committees that have oversight of and coordinate international research links, and processes that monitor or record such links. The data were analysed against two main variables relating to UK higher education institutions (HEIs), type of institution, and size of provision. HEIs are classified by 'type' according to whether they existed as universities prior to 1992, when polytechnics became universities, whether they acquired university status post 1992, and whether they are specialist institutions or general colleges of higher education. On tables these variables appear as Pre-92, Post-92 or SI/GC. The following ranges of full-time equivalent (FTE) student population are used to determine institutional size: small, up to 7999 students; medium, 8000 to 19,999 students; large, over 20,000 students. Table i provides some evidence for a correlation between type and size of institutions with TNE provision. There are no specialist institutions/colleges that are large in size and only four that are medium sized, although there are institutions of each type in all of the other size categories. The majority of post-92s are large Table i - Type by size of institution Type of HEI

Large HEIs

Post 92

29

Medium sized HEIs 12

Pre 92 SI/GC Total

25 0 54

25 4 41

Small HEIs

Total

5

46

8 19 32

58 23 127

2. Methods The methodology was a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques. A qualitative methodology was used to inform the research: this aimed to ensure that the research reflected the concerns and interests of HEIs, rather than the assumptions of the research team. Via a pre-pilot, interviews were conducted that were designed to inform the research team about institutional practices, procedures and issues. The main study then was quantitative in nature, using information gleaned from the prepilot to design the questionnaire. Between January and March 2007 the research team constructed contact lists and also developed and trialled the research instruments (e.g., e-mail requests; introductory letter).

5


During March and April 2007 a pre-pilot and piloting stage was conducted whereby visits were paid to institutions or telephone contact was made, with some interviews conducted with the purpose of clarifying issues. One Welsh, one Northern Irish, one Scottish and five English HEIs were identified to participate in the pilot. Following this stage, there was a pilot stage to test the survey questionnaire and online versions. The survey was issued in May 2007 and follow-up letters and emails were issued in the normal manner along with follow-up telephone calls to maximise the response rate. In the event the research team received 132 responses from a total of 165 HEIs in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (a response rate of 80%). The research team actually managed to gain responses from all 165 institutions: the 33 HEIs that we do not have any data for all declined to take part even when follow up requests were made. For some this may be because they do not engage in IRC, for others it may be that they do not wish to report on any IRC that they do engage in. Paper questionnaires were scanned into Teleform software and analysed using SPSS. Where data were provided by completion of the online questionnaire the data were automatically entered into the SPSS database. Of the 132 responses 84 (64%) were on paper and 48 (36%) submitted electronically. Qualitative responses on paper questionnaires were typed and manually coded into themes. Of the 132 institutions submitting data, information relating to the country, type and size of institution is missing from five responses. Therefore, throughout this report while overall totals may add up to 132, totals by country, size and type will only total 127 which is 77% of all HEIs in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

3. Responses This section looks at the characteristics of responding institutions. Table 1 shows responses by UK Country. Note that The Open University (OU) counts as one UKwide institution for the purposes of this research

6


Table 1 - Responses by Country

England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Open University Total

All Institutions N 129 19 12

All Institutions % 78 12 7

4

Response rate N

Response rate %

99 15 8

77 79 75

2

4

100

1

1

1

100

165

100

127

77

There was a very high level of response from both pre- and post-92 HEIs of over 80% although of the specialist institutions/colleges of higher education, only two thirds (66%) responded to the questionnaire (Table 2). Table 2 - Responses by type of institution

Valid

Pre Post SI/GC Total Missing Total

Responses

Response %

Total of Type

% of Type

58 46 23 127 5 132

44 35 17 96 5 132

69 56 35

84 82 66

4 100

Large and medium HEIs (92% and 80%) were more likely to respond than small HEIs (59%, Table 3). Table 3 - Responses by size of institution

Valid

Large Medium Small Total Missing Total

Response

Response %

Total of Size

% of Size

54 41 32 127 5 132

41 31 24 96 5 132

59 51 54

92 80 59

4 100

7


4. Main findings from the survey 4.1 Strategic Approach Pro Vice-Chancellor responsibilities The research sought to establish ultimate responsibilities in this area and in particular to see how far ultimate research responsibilities are separate from or linked to responsibilities for internationalisation. Respondents were able to select multiple options so the categories were not mutually exclusive. A respondent might, therefore, indicate that they have a research PVC and that they also have a PVC responsible for research and internationalisation. Note that in all the following tables the total response rate for each question may vary so the N and the percentage refer to the number of respondents that answered yes to the question. Overall 25% of responding HEIs have a Pro Vice-Chancellor (PVC) responsible for both research and internationalisation; almost 90% have a PVC responsible for research and just over half have a PVC responsible for internationalisation (Table 4). The proportions are similar for each country (Appendix Table 1). Table 4 - PVC responsibilities: overall PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation PVC responsible for research PVC responsible for internationalisation

N

%

Total

25

25

99

101 60

88 55

115 109

Pre-92 HEIs, post-92 HEIs and SI/GCs are equally likely to have a PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation, however pre-92s are more likely to have a PVC responsible for internationalisation (63%) than the other HEI types and SI/GCs are least likely to have a PVC for research (70%, Table 5). Table 5 - PVC responsibilities by type Pre-92 N % PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation PVC responsible for research PVC responsible for internationalisation

Post-92 N %

N

%

SI/GC

10

26

9

25

5

26

46 31

92 63

36 18

90 50

14 10

70 50

Large HEIs are least likely to have a PVC with joint responsibility for research and internationalisation and most likely to have separate PVC with responsibility for research and internationalisation (Table 6).

8


Table 6 - PVC responsibilities by size

PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation PVC responsible for research PVC responsible for internationalisation

N

Large %

9

24

43 27

94 61

Medium N %

N

Small %

8

29

7

25

33 18

92 55

20 14

71 50

Research Strategies The research sought to establish whether institutions have overarching strategies for research, whether they also have strategies for internationalisation and if these two strategies are combined. It then explored how far the strategies specifically addressed international research collaborations. It then went on to explore the aspects of international research collaboration that are covered in these strategies. Almost all HEIs that responded reported that they have a research strategy (95%); two-thirds (68%) have an internationalisation strategy. Less than half (43%) have a combined research and internationalisation strategy and just over a quarter have another related strategy (27%, Table 7) Table 7 - Research strategy overall HEI strategies Strategy that combines research and internationalisation Research strategy Internationalisation strategy Another strategy, please specify?*

N

%

Total

39

43

91

102 65 6

95 68 27

107 95 18

*See note after table 9 Scottish HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy and slightly more likely to have a research strategy than English HEIs. There are insufficient data from Wales and Northern Ireland to draw any conclusions (Appendix Table 2). Almost all institutions have a research strategy and three-quarters of pre- and post92 institutions and two-thirds of SI/GCs have an internationalisation strategy. Almost two-thirds of pre-92 HEIs have a combined strategy (62%) compared to post-92s (28%) and SI/GCs (21%, Table 8. Table 8 - Research strategy by type

Strategy that combines research and internationalisation Research strategy Internationalisation strategy Another strategy, please specify?*

Pre-92 N % 62 26 39 26 3

* See the note after table 9

9

95 72 38

Post-92 N % 28 9

N 3

% 21

98 72 18

22 13 0

96 65 -

39 26 2

SI/GC


Half of large HEIs and just below half of medium sized HEIs (44%) have a combined strategy, while less than a third (30%) of small HEIs have a strategy combining internationalisation and research (Table 9). Table 9 - Research strategy by size N Strategy that combines research and internationalisation Research strategy Internationalisation strategy? Another strategy, please specify?*

Large %

Medium N %

50 93 69 4

19 38 25 4

44 100 73 -

12 33 22 0

Small N

%

7 29 18 1

30 97 69 17

* Among respondents that have another strategy, two have overarching strategies that combined internationalisation and research (one large pre-92 embedded in the Corporate Plan and Divisional Strategies, one large post-92 as part of the Academic Strategy). Two have them as part of the research strategy (one medium sized SI/GC and one large post-92); one medium sized pre-92 as part of the strategy of the International Office and two pre-92s (one small, one large) where internationalisation and research are part of School strategies.

Strategies for international research collaboration Analysis of the nature of strategies found that a quarter (24%) of HEIs have a research and internationalisation strategy that specifically deal with international research collaborations (IRC) to a significant extent and a further 62% 'to some extent'. Just over a third reported that their internationalisation strategies deal with IRC to a significant extent and a further 51% 'to some extent'. Almost a third of HEIs reported that their research strategies do not deal with IRC at all (Table 10). There is very little variation on these patterns by country, type or size of HEI (see Appendix Tables 3, 4 and 5), however analysis of responses by HEI type revealed that very few SI/GCs or small HEIs responded to this set of questions. Table 10 - Strategy for international research collaborations: overall Yes, to a significant extent N % Does the research and internationalisation strategy specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the internationalisation strategy specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research strategy specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the other strategy specifically deal with international research collaborations

10

Yes, to some extent N %

N

%

N

No

Total

12

24

31

62

7

14

50

22

34

33

51

10

15

65

28

28

42

41

32

31

102

-

-

3

75

1

25

4


The content of IRC strategies HEIs are more likely to have strategies that specified partner type and particular countries or regions than they are to specify subject area. Only a quarter (26%) of IRC strategies specified subject areas while over half (55%) specified partnership type and 42% particular countries or regions. HEIs are also unlikely to have specific income targets or targets of other kinds (Table 11). Table 11 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: overall Yes Does your strategy specify particular countries or regions? Does your strategy refer to a focus on specific types of partnership? Does your strategy specify subject areas? Does your strategy have income targets? Does your strategy specify other targets?*

N

%

N

No %

N

N\A %

Total N

38

41

46

50

9

10

93

50

55

61

34

10

11

121

24 13 15

26 14 20

56 69 45

61 75 61

12 10 14

13 11 19

92 92 74

Among individual countries, Scottish respondents are more likely to specify partnership type (73% as opposed to 55% for all and 53% for England), though the number of respondents is low (Appendix Table 6). However, there are larger variations by HEI type with pre-1992 HEIs far more likely than post-92 HEIs to specify particular countries or regions and partnership types (Table 12). Table 12 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by HEI type Pre-92 N % Does your strategy specify particular countries or regions? Does your strategy refer to a focus on specific types of partnership? Does your strategy specify subject areas? Does your strategy have income targets? Does your strategy specify other targets?*

Post-92 N %

SI/GC N %

22

50

8

26

8

41

30

68

12

40

8

55

9 9 7

21 21 23

5 3 5

17 10 18

10 3

26 14 20

Note: SI/GC numbers too small for useful comparison

Analysis by size shows that it is the smaller HEIs that are more likely to specify particular countries or regions, partnership types and subject areas. Note also that larger institutions are more likely to specify income and other targets in their IRC strategies (Table 13). Table 13 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by size N Does your strategy specify particular countries or regions? Does your strategy refer to a focus on specific types of partnership? Does your strategy specify subject areas? Does your strategy have income targets? Does your strategy specify other targets?*

Large %

Medium N %

15

37

11

44

12

48

21

53

15

60

14

58

6 8 9

15 20 27

6 3 3

23 12 16

12 1 3

48 4 15

Note: Tables 13 and 14 do not contain NAs which account for between 8 and 25% of responses.

11

Small N %


*Other targets referred to include overall targets for defined research areas in one large post-92 institution, two that have targets related to student numbers (one large post-92 and one large pre-92) two that related to income targets (one large post-92, one large pre-92) and three large pre-92 institutions that referred to publication targets.

Strategic Approach Summary To summarise, most HEIs have PVCs responsible for research and over half have PVCs responsible for research and internationalisation but only a quarter have PVCs responsible for both areas. Pre-92s are more likely to have PVCs responsible for internationalisation and SI/GCs least likely to have PVCs responsible for research: 





Almost all HEIs have a research strategy, two thirds have an internationalisation strategy and less than half have a combined strategy. Pre92 HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy. Combined strategies are also more likely in large institutions. Whilst HEIs, therefore, have senior managers responsible for research and for internationalisation and strategies in these areas (separate or combined) they are much less likely to specifically address international research collaboration at the highest strategic level in the institution. Generally only a quarter to a third of HEIs specifically address IRC in their strategies and just over half do to some extent. Where strategies referred to IRC they rarely specified targets and are more likely to refer to partners than to countries and least likely to refer to specific subject areas.

4.2 Operational structures and processes Central committees We also explored committee structures that concern IRC in relation to strategic levels of co-ordination and monitoring of IRC in institutions. The vast majority of responding HEIs (96%) have a central committee responsible for research, and a significant minority (39%) have a central committee responsible for internationalisation. However, only 16% have a central committee responsible for both research and internationalisation (Table 14). There are no significant variations by country, size or HEI type (Appendix Tables 7, 8 and 9).

12


Table 14 - Central committees: overall Central committee responsible for research and internationalisation Central committee responsible for research Central committee responsible for internationalisation Another central committee dealing with research/ internationalisation, please specify?*

N

%

Total

14

16

89

116 40

96 39

121 102

5

28

18

*Among respondents that cited another committee dealing with research/ internationalisation, one small SI/GC referred to the directorate of school, one large post-92 cited a faculty-based committee for research and once small pre-92 have an Overseas Collaborating Institutions Committee for this purpose. A quarter (25%) of responding HEIs reported that the research committee deals with IRC to a significant extent and another 49% to some extent. Very small numbers responded to the question 'Does the research and internationalisation committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?' making any variations too insignificant to report (N=14).There is little variation by country, size or HEI type for any of these questions. Table 15 - Nature of the central committee dealing with international research: overall Yes, to a significant extent N % Does the research and internationalisation committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the internationalisation committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the other committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Yes, to some extent N %

N

%

N

No

Total

2

14

9

64

3

21

14

26

25

50

49

27

26

103

12

33

19

53

5

14

36

1

20

3

60

1

20

5

The highest level committee dealing with research in HEIs is also responsible for the research strategy in 95% of cases, for externally funded research in 82% of cases and for the research assessment exercise (RAE) in 90% of cases. However, responsibility for research students/studentships and unfunded research (i.e. research conducted by academics as part of their research interests) is dispersed to other levels of the HEI in around 40% of institutions (Table 16). There is very little variation by country, though analysis by size shows that medium sized HEIs are slightly more likely to have all research responsibility at the highest level (100% for research strategy, 92% for externally funded research and 98% for the RAE). Analysis by type shows that SI/GCs are more likely to have responsibilities dispersed, but also more likely to have the highest committee responsible for research students/studentships (67%) and unfunded research (71%, Appendix Tables 10, 11 and 12).

13


Table 16 - Level of research decision making: overall Yes Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for the research strategy? Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for externally funded research? Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for the RAE? Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for research students/studentships? Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for unfunded research?

N

%

N

No %

N

N\A %

Total N

22

95

4

3

2

2

28

103

82

20

16

2

2

125

114

90

10

8

3

2

127

74

60

46

37

3

2

123

62

52

52

43

6

5

120

Committee Structures Summary Whist HEIs have committee structures that relate to research and internationalisation, the majority do not deal with IRC specifically. Committee structures do not always encompass all types of research, with research students and studentships and unfunded research often being devolved to other, more local, levels in institutions.

Corporate plans Corporate plans that refer specifically to IRC 'to a significant extent' are in the minority at 14%, while another 57% of plans refer to IRC 'to some extent'. However, 29% of HEIs reported that their corporate plans do not refer to IRC. SI/GCs (with a lower response rate) are the most likely to report 'significant extent' (23%) but also the most likely to report no specific references to IRC (50%) in their corporate plans. Among the size bands, smaller HEIs repeated the pattern of SI/GCs by reporting the highest incidence of significant extent (19%) and the highest incidence of nonreference to IRC (45%, Appendix Tables 13-16). School/faculty/department business plans that refer specifically to IRC are reported in similar proportions to corporate plans, with the smallest and most specialist institutions recording the least references to IRC in plans.

Corporate plans Summary It seems to be the norm for either corporate or school/faculty/department plans to refer to IRC.

14


Monitoring of strategies Over half of HEIs (55%) reported that they monitored the progress of institutional strategies and plans relating to IRC at institutional level. This practice is more common among pre-92 HEIs (66%) than among post-92s (41%). Around 60% of SI/GCs reporting that they monitored strategies, however this category is the most likely to report that this is not applicable (13%, Appendix Tables 17-19). There is no significant variation by institution size or country. Almost all HEIs (93%) that carry out such monitoring report regularly to PVC or high level committee level. When asked if the monitoring is 'broad brush', 'fairly specific' or 'detailed' there is little variation by country, with around 45% of respondents saying 'broad-brush' and 'fairly specific' and 10% 'detailed', however monitoring is more likely to be 'broad brush' in post-92 and medium sized institutions and more likely to be 'fairly specific' in smaller and specialist institutions (SI/GCs, Appendix Tables 1719). Monitoring is most likely to refer to funded international research, which occurred in 89% of reported cases. International research studentships and unfunded international research are less likely to be mentioned (Table 17). Once again it is the smaller HEIs and those in the SI/GC category that exhibit the most centralised research monitoring; 69% of SI/GCs reported on unfunded international research compared to 46% of pre-92s and 63% of small HEIs reported on unfunded international research compared to 39% of pre-92s. Table 17 - Content of monitoring reports: overall Yes Does the monitoring refer to funded international research? Does the monitoring refer to international research studentships? Does the monitoring refer to unfunded international research?

N

%

N

No %

N

N\A %

Total N

63

89

4

6

4

6

71

46

67

14

20

9

13

69

34

51

27

40

6

9

67

Monitoring strategies Summary Where there are strategies and plans relating to IRC just over half of them are monitored. Monitoring and reporting is most likely in small and specialist institutions where gathering of data may be less complex. Monitoring is most likely to refer to the monitoring of funded research, rather than unfunded research or research studentships.

15


Overall summary- institutional strategic approaches Whist institutions do have high level individuals responsible for research and internationalisation and do have strategies for both and do have institutional research committee structures, it is not the norm for those to refer to IRC, and where the do refer to IRC it tends not to be to a great degree of specificity. Types and extent of international research collaboration The research sought to identify the structures and processes used by HEIs to coordinate and monitor IRC. We will begin by identifying the types of IRC HEIs engage in. Three-quarters or more of responding HEIs have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies (78%), by other international organisations (75%) or by UK public bodies (83%). In addition, 86% of HEIs report unfunded research collaborations with overseas academic colleagues. Over twothirds of HEIs (68%) report postgraduate research where students are located overseas, while 62% have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues (Table 18). This indicates a considerable amount of IRC across HEIs. Table 18 - Types of international research collaboration: overall International research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies International research collaborations funded by other international organisations International research collaborations funded by UK public bodies Postgraduate research where students are located overseas Postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner Unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues

N

%

Total

103

78

131

99

75

132

109

83

132

90

68

132

82

62

132

113

86

132

There is significant variation by HEI type, with pre-92 institutions far more likely to be in receipt of funding from overseas public bodies (93%), other international organisations (95%) and UK public bodies (93%) than post-92s (76%, 65% and 83%) and, to an even greater extent, SI/GCs, less than half of which receive funding from any international public bodies. SI/GCs are also less likely to have postgraduate research where students are located abroad (30% compared to 72% for pre-92s) and where postgraduates' supervision is shared with overseas partners (26%). Post92 universities report the highest proportion of postgraduate research where students are located overseas (85%) and of unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues (91%, Table 19).

16


Table 19 - Types of international research collaboration: by type Pre-92 N % International research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies International research collaborations funded by other international organisations International research collaborations funded by UK public bodies Postgraduate research where students are located overseas Postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner Unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues

Post-92 N %

SI/GC N %

54

93

35

76

11

48

55

95

30

65

10

44

54

93

38

83

13

57

42

72

39

85

7

30

40

69

32

69

6

26

49

85

42

91

19

83

There is a similar profile by size of institution with over 90% of larger HEIs in receipt of funding from overseas public bodies and international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies. Only half of small HEIs (53%) are in receipt of funding from overseas public bodies and are they also less likely to have postgraduate research where students are located overseas (38% compared to 68% for all HEIs) and where postgraduates supervision is shared with overseas partners (28%, Table 20). There was insufficient data for analysis by country (Appendix Table 20). Table 20 - The funding of international research: by size N International research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies International research collaborations funded by other international organisations International research collaborations funded by UK public bodies Postgraduate research where students are located overseas Postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner Unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues

Large %

Medium N %

Small N %

51

94

32

78

17

53

47

87

28

68

20

63

49

91

33

81

23

72

45

83

31

76

12

38

40

74

29

71

9

28

49

91

34

83

27

84

Types and extent of international research collaboration Summary HEIs have a considerable amount of IRC across all the identified forms of IRC. For all HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC. There seems to be a discrepancy between the level of activity engaged in by HEIs and the level of strategic overview.

Research responsibility at department/school/faculty level We explored firstly the responsibilities at department/school/faculty level before exploring whether these responsibilities included IRC.

17


A large majority (89%) of responding HEIs report that their department/faculty has a lead person at head of research level and 89% have a person leading on postgraduate research students. Two-thirds (66%) have a person leading on externally funded research, though less than half (47%) have a lead person on unfunded research. In over half of responding institutions these roles are combined (Table 21). There are no significant variations by country (Appendix Table 21). Among HEI types pre-92 institutions are the least likely to report that the lead person responsibilities are combined (37% against 54% for all HEIs and 78% for SI/GCs). Responsibilities are also more likely to be combined within medium sized HEIs (63% against 54% for all HEIs, Appendix Tables 22 and 23). Table 21 - Responsibility of lead person: overall Yes Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on un-funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?*

N

%

N

No %

N

N\A %

Total N

106

89

8

7

5

4

119

69

66

31

30

5

5

105

46

47

45

46

8

8

99

100

89

9

8

4

4

113

35

54

20

31

10

15

65

* The titles of lead persons varied considerably: of 22 responses that named the role responsible six were VC or Deputy VC level and ten at senior management level. Eight responses were from pre-92 HEIs, 12 from post-92 and 2 from SI/GCs; 16 institutions were large, four medium sized and two small. Among the large post-92 institutions responsibility lay with PVCs for Research in two cases, Senior Management for Research in two cases and Head of Graduate School in two cases and Director of Finance in one case. Large pre-92s exhibited a similar pattern. Among medium sized institutions responsibility was at VC and Director of Research level (2 instances of each). The lead person and international research The lead person deals with IRC to a 'significant extent' in 26% of responding HEIs and 'to some extent' in another 55% and took a significant role in international research collaborations, unfunded research and postgraduate students in approximately a third of HEIs. Combining 'significant' and 'to some extent' the lead person has responsibility for all these issues in approximately 80% of HEIs (Table 22). When the figures are broken down by HEI type the only significant variation occurs in the SI/GC category where the lead person is more likely to have responsibility to 'a significant extent' (for example 46% for international research collaborations) (Appendix Tables 24, 25 and 26).

18


Table 22 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: overall Yes, to a significant extent N % 26 26 34 22 30 14

Do roles involve IRC? Head of research institute/division/centre Lead person on externally funded research Lead person on un-funded research Lead person on postgraduate research students Combined role person

Yes, to some extent N % 55 55 55 36 57 26

N 20 7 6

% 20 11 13

N 101 65 46

No

Total

32

36

36

40

21

24

89

10

36

16

57

2

7

28

Lead person Summary A quarter of lead persons for all types of research are likely to have significant responsibility for IRC and over half the responsibility to some extent. This is the same across all the different roles. Department / school / faculty level committees More than three-quarters of HEIs (80%) reported that there they have research committees in each department/school/faculty, while more than half (57%) have separate committees at this level to deal with postgraduate degrees (Table 23). Research committees in each department/school/faculty are more prevalent in Scotland than amongst all HEIs: 93% of institutions have research committees at the local level and 64% have separate committees to deal with postgraduate degrees (Appendix Table 27). Table 23 - Department / school / faculty level committees: overall Yes Research committee in each department/school/faculty Separate committee in each department/school/faculty

N

%

N

No %

N

N\A %

Total N

101

80

21

17

5

4

127

65

57

47

41

3

3

115

Post-92 (91%) and pre-92 HEIs (82%) are both far more likely than SI/GCs (50%) to have research committees at department/school/faculty level and to have separate committees to deal with postgraduate degrees in each school; only 11% of SI/GCs have this facility (Table 24). Table 24 - Department / school / faculty level committees: by type Pre-92 N %

Research committee in each department/school/faculty Separate committee in each department/school/faculty

19

Post-92 N %

SI/GC N %

46

82

40

91

11

80

34

67

23

59

5

57


Large (90%) and medium-sized HEIs (90%) are far more likely to have research committees at school level than small HEIs, among whom only 48% have this facility. Only 25% of small HEIs have a separate committee to deal with postgraduate degrees in each school, compared to half (50%) in medium and 79% in large institutions (Table 25). Table 25 - Department/school/faculty level committees: by size N

Research committee in each department/school/faculty Separate committee in each department/school/faculty

Large %

Medium N %

Small N %

47

90

35

90

15

48

37

79

18

50

7

25

The responsibilities of department/school/faculty level committees Responsibility for IRC is equally distributed between research committees and separate IRC committees in responding HEIs. Specific research committees and deal with IRC to 'a significant extent' in 16% of cases, with another 68% 'to some extent'. For separate IRC committees 20% deal with IRC to 'a significant extent' and 61% to some extent' (Table 26). Table 26 - IRC responsibility at department/school/faculty level: overall Yes, to a significant extent

Do roles involve IRC?

Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Yes, to some extent

No

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

15

16

64

68

15

16

94

12

20

37

61

12

20

61

Numbers responding to the survey were too small for any variation by country to be reported (Appendix Table 28). However, analysis by type of HEI revealed that pre-92 HEIs are far more likely to report that both committees have a significant input on IRC (23% for research and 25% separate) than post-92 HEIs (8% and 14%) or SI/GCs (11% for research, 0 for the separate committee). Among post-92s over a quarter reported neither committee dealing with IRC while a third of SI/GCs reported that their research committees do not deal with IRC (Appendix Table 29). Medium sized HEIs are more likely to report involvement to a significant extent than large HEIs or SI/GCs. Among medium HEIs 32% reported that a separate committee deal with IRC as opposed to just 17% of their research committees (Appendix Table 30).

20


Committees Summary Our findings suggest that the larger the institution the more likely it is to have committees at school/department/faculty level dealing with research and to have separate committees dealing with postgraduate research, and that this is general across HEI types. Most such committees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent. A central office for externally funded projects The research sought to establish if HEIs have central units that co-ordinate and monitor IRC. Overall, 85% of responding HEIs have a central office to deal with externally funded research projects. That figure rose to 93% of the 15 Scottish respondents and 100% of the eight Welsh respondents. SI/GCs reported the lowest proportion of HEIs by type (68%) that have a central office and smaller HEIs the lowest category by size of institution (74%) with over 90% of both large and medium sized institutions (91% and 93% respectively, Appendix Tables 31-34). Responsibility for the central office Responsibility for the central office most commonly belonged to 'a senior manager for research' (in 47% of cases) followed by 'a senior manager for business or enterprise' in 20% and 'a senior manager in Registry or equivalent' in 12% of cases. A fifth (20%) of respondents cited 'other please specify' (Table 27). Table 27 - Responsibility for the central office: overall Under whose responsibility does it sit? A senior manager for research A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent A senior manager for business or enterprise A senior manager in corporate planning Other, please specify* A senior manager for research Total

N

%

52

47

13

12

22

20

2 22 111

2 20 100

Numbers are too small for analysis by country (Appendix Table 35), however there are variations by HEI type and size. Among pre-92 HEIs, senior managers for research are responsible for the central office in 50% of cases with 14% for senor managers in Registry and 18% in business and enterprise. Among post-92 HEIs responsibility is more evenly divided between senior managers for research (36%), senior managers for business or enterprise (23%) and Registry (10%) and 31% stating responsibility is under 'other'. Among the 14 SI/GCs that answered to this question 64% located the central office under the leadership of the senior manager for research (Table 28).

21


Table 28 - Responsibility for the central office: by type Pre / Post / SI Pre

A senior manager for research A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent A senior manager for business or enterprise A senior manager in corporate planning Other, please specify* Total

Post

SI/GC

N

%

N

%

N

%

28

50

14

36

9

64

8

14

4

10

-

-

10

18

9

23

3

21

2

4

-

-

-

-

8

14

12

31

2

14

56

100

39

100

14

100

Analysis by size reveals that smaller institutions (albeit with a response of only 22) reported the highest incidence of locating the central office under the responsibility of a senior manager for research (64%) compared to 54% for medium and 34% for large HEIs. In each category 'a senior manger for business or enterprise' is second most common response, although almost a third of large HEIs reported that responsibility lay in an 'other' category (Table 29). Table 29 - Responsibility for the central office: by size Size of institution Large

A senior manager for research A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent A senior manager for business or enterprise A senior manager in corporate planning Other, please specify* Total

Medium

Small

N

%

N

%

N

%

17

34

20

54

14

64

6

12

4

11

2

9

10

20

9

24

3

14

1

2

-

-

1

5

16

32

4

11

2

9

50

100

37

100

22

100

22


Central postgraduate office Overall, 81% of responding HEIs have a central postgraduate office; 89% of post92s, 83% of pre-92s and only 68% of SI/GCs have a central postgraduate office. There is no significant variation by size and insufficient data for analysis by country (Appendix Tables 36-39). Responsibility for the postgraduate office Registry or equivalent is the most common location for responsibility for the postgraduate office, cited in 46% of responses, followed by 'a senior manager for research' (32%, Table 30). There were insufficient data for analysis by country (Appendix Table 40). Table 30 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: overall A senior manager for research A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent A senior manager for business or enterprise Other, please specify* Total

N 33

% 32

47

46

3

3

20 103

19 100

Among pre-92 institutions responsibility is most commonly located within Registry or equivalent (61%) while among post-92s senior managers for research are more likely to hold responsibility than Registry (44% to 36%, Table 31). Table 31 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by type Pre / Post / SI Pre

A senior manager for research A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent A senior manager for business or enterprise Other, please specify* Total

Post

SI/GC

N

%

N

%

N

%

6

13

17

44

9

60

28

61

14

36

4

27

2

4

1

3

-

-

10

22

7

18

2

13

46

100

39

100

15

100

23


Analysed by size, large and medium institutions most commonly located responsibility in Registry, followed by 'a senior manager for research' (as do the smaller number of small HEI respondents). In both large and medium HEIs a significant minority (24% and 18% respectively) located responsibility in the 'other, please specify' category (Table 32). Table 32 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by size Size of institution Large

A senior manager for research A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent A senior manager for business or enterprise Other, please specify* Total

Medium

Small

N

%

N

%

N

%

11

24

12

35

9

43

22

49

14

41

10

48

1

2

2

6

11

24

6

18

2

10

45

100

34

100

21

100

*Combinations of people dealing with international research collaborations included three institutions where the head of research/division/centre is also the lead person on externally funded research (one large pre-92, one large post-92 and one medium sized pre-92); six institutions where the head of research/division/centre is also the lead person on externally funded research and on unfunded research (three medium sized pre-92s, one large post-92, one medium pre-92 and one small SI/GC); six institutions where the head of research / division / centre is also the lead person on externally funded research, unfunded research and postgraduates (two large post-92s, two medium-sized SI/GCs, one small SI/GC and once medium-sized post-92s). In addition the lead person on externally funded research and on unfunded research are combined in two small SI/GCs and the head of research / division / centre also lead on externally funded research and postgraduates in two large post-92s and one medium sized pre-92.

Four institutions reported that this pattern varied between departments, schools or faculties across the institution (three large pre-92s and once large post-92); two post92s (one large, one small) reported that Associate Deans are responsible at faculty level; two pre-92s (one large, one medium) reported that responsibility at faculty level rested with Research Committees; and three institutions have a centrally nominated person responsible (two large post-92s, one large pre-92 and one small SI/GC). Responsibility for the postgraduate office Summary Responsibility for postgraduate offices most often falls within the Registry (or equivalent) or research office, though in larger institutions (pre- and post-92) there is more likelihood that responsibility will be spread among other areas, often at research centre or faculty level. Smaller and specialist institutions are more likely to centralise responsibility.

24


4.3 Recording information about international research collaborations Three-quarters of responding HEIs (77%) hold information about overseas funded income centrally, while two-thirds (68%) record the information and over half (57%) collate and report it. Just over a third (35%) hold this information in the relevant department, school or faculty (Table 33).

Table 33 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: overall Record

N 90

% 68

Total 132

Collated/reported on

75

57

132

Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all

101

77

132

46

35

132

1

1

132

Does not apply

10

8

132

There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country, however there are significant variations by HEI type and size (Appendix Table 41). Pre-92s are more likely to record (81%), hold centrally (83%) and collate and report on such information than post-92s and SI/GCs. Post-92s are the most likely to hold the information in the department, school or faculty. Less than half of SI/GCs either record (44%) or collated/reported on income from overseas funded projects (Table 34). A similar pattern emerges from analysis by size of institution, with large HEIs more likely to record (85%), hold centrally (83%) and collate and report (66%) such information than medium and small HEIs. Small institutions are more likely than medium ones to collate and report, though medium institutions are more likely to hold such information centrally and within the department, school or faculty (Table 34). Table 34 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 81 47

Type Post-92 N % 70 32

SI/GC N % 44 10

Large N % 85 46

Size Medium N % 66 27

Small N % 50 16

38

66

25

54

11

48

38

70

19

46

17

53

48

83

36

78

14

61

45

83

32

78

21

66

19

33

14

61

7

30

24

44

14

34

3

19

2

3

1 1

2 2

6

26

1 -

2 -

2

5

7

22

25


The recording of income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations Almost three-quarters of responding HEIs (72%) hold information on income from UK funded research projects involving international collaborations centrally and two thirds (67%) record it, however only half collate and report on it. A third (34%) hold this information within the department, school or faculty (Table 35). Table 35 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations: overall Record

N 88

% 67

Total 132

Collated/reported on

66

50

132

Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all

95

72

132

45

34

132

1

1

132

10

8

132

Does not apply

Pre-92 universities are the most likely to record income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations (74%) while SI/GCs are the least likely at only 52%. Analysis by size revealed a similar pattern with the large HEIs most likely to record the information (76%) and small HEIs the least likely at 56% and also the least likely to record such information at the school, department or faculty level (Table 36). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country except for England and Scotland, where there is no significant variation (Appendix Table 42). Table 36 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 74 43

Type Post-92 N % 70 32

SI/GC N % 52 12

Large N % 76 41

Size Medium N % 68 28

Small N % 56 18

30

52

23

50

12

52

28

52

19

46

18

56

43

74

34

74

15

65

40

73

30

72

22

69

18

31

18

39

7

30

23

43

14

34

6

19

1 2

2 3

2

3

5

22

1 1

2 2

2

5

6

19

26


Central Office for Externally Funded Research Responding institutions were asked to name the Central Office that deals with their externally funded research projects. Responses came in seven categories: research office/support; linked with enterprise or business development; referring to funding; linked to knowledge transfer; referring to development/innovation; referring to graduate study; and referring to strategy. Titles referring to enterprise or business development are most common, 25 instances; and are most commonly found in large post-92 institutions (8) and medium sized and large pre-92s (7 and 5). Titles referring to research office or research support are the second most commonly found and the most evenly spread among HEI categories. Six large post-92s referred to funding in the title and seven medium sized pre-92s have development or innovation in their titles (Appendix Table 43). Responsibility of the Central Office is at PVC or Deputy VC level in seven responding institutions (3 large post-92s, 2 medium sized pre-92s, 1 large pre-92 and one small SI/GC). Senior managers are responsible in ten institutions (4 large post-92s, 3 large pre-92s, 1 medium sized post-92, 1 small post-92 and 1 medium sized SI/GC). One large post-92 has responsibility under the University Research Committee.

Recording the types of international partners in research collaborations (funded research) Only just over half (53%) of all responding HEIs hold information on types of international partners in research collaborations involving funded research, and less than half (47%) record it. Less than a third of such collaborations are collated and reported on and for 11% of institutions this information is not recorded at all. However, 39% held the information at school, department or faculty level (Table 37).

Table 37 - Recording the types of international partners: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 62 38 70

% 47 29 53

Total 132 132 132

51

39

132

15 10

11 8

132 132

There is little variation between the overall findings and those by HEI type or size. However, SI/GCs and smaller HEIs are the least likely to record information on types of international partners in research collaborations involving funded research. The proportion of institutions not recording such information in any way is highest among pre-92 universities (17%) and among medium sized HEIs (20%, Table 38). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country except for England and Scotland, where there is no significant variation (Appendix Table 44).

27


Table 38 - Recording the types of international partners: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 52 30

Type Post-92 N % 50 23

SI/GC N % 35 8

Large N % 57 31

Size Medium N % 46 19

Small N % 34 11

16

28

14

30

8

35

16

30

12

39

10

31

32

55

23

50

13

57

31

57

21

51

16

50

19

33

21

46

8

35

25

46

13

32

10

31

10 2

17 3

4 3

9 7

1 4

4 17

4 3

7 6

8 2

20 5

3 4

9 13

The recording of where international funded research collaborations are taking place Less than half (47%) of responding HEIs hold information on where international research collaborations are taking place centrally, only 25% collate and report on such information and 14% do not record the information at all. However, 42% of HEIs record this information at school, department or faculty level (Table 39). There were insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 45). Table 39 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 53 33 62

% 40 25 47

Total 132 132 132

55

42

132

18 10

14 8

132 132

Pre-92 universities and medium sized institutions are the most likely to hold information on where international research collaborations are taking place centrally (both 49%) with SI/GCs and small HEIs the least likely at 26% and 25% respectively. Pre-92 universities and medium sized institutions are also the most likely to record that they do not record such information at all (Table 40). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country. Table 40 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 48 28

Type Post-92 N % 41 19

SI/GC N % 26 6

Large N % 46 25

Size Medium N % 49 20

Small N % 25 8

14

24

11

24

8

35

15

28

9

22

9

28

27

47

22

48

11

48

29

54

18

44

13

41

21

36

21

46

10

44

24

44

17

42

11

34

11 3

19 5

6 3

13 7

1 3

4 13

6 4

11 7

7 2

17 4

5 3

16 9

28


The recording of the subject area of international funded research collaborations Less than half (47%) of responding HEIs hold information about the subject area of international research collaborations centrally, and where it is recorded (42%) it is held at school, department or faculty level. Less than a quarter (24%) of institutions collate and report on this information and 11% do not record it in any way (Table 41). Table 41 - Recording of the subject of international funded research collaborations: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 56 31 62

% 42 24 47

Total 132 132 132

57

43

132

14 11

11 8

132 132

SI/GCs (39%) and small HEIs (38%) are the most likely to collate and report on the subject areas of international research collaborations. Over half of pre-92 universities recorded this information and held it centrally (52% for both), a profile shared by medium sized HEIs. Post-92 universities (50%) and large HEIs (48%) are those most likely to hold such information at school, department or faculty level. Small institutions are the most likely not to record this information at all (Table 42). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 46). Table 42 - Recording of the subject of international research collaborations by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 52 30

Type Post-92 N % 39 18

SI/GC N % 35 8

Large N % 44 24

Size Medium N % 49 20

Small N % 38 12

14

24

8

17

9

39

10

19

9

22

12

38

30

52

20

44

10

44

25

46

55

54

13

41

22

38

23

50

9

39

26

48

17

42

11

34

6 3

10 5

6 3

13 7

2 4

9 17

5 4

9 17

4 2

10 5

5 4

16 13

Recording of income records for IRC Summary There is a greater likelihood that income records of UK and overseas funded research collaborations will be kept than the actual location, partner details or subject areas of such linkages. On issues less directly related to income, such as the recording of details of partners, subject areas and countries where IRC occurs, information is more likely to be held in departments, faculties and schools. Small institutions and SI/GCs appear more likely to collate and report on information by subject area (perhaps because subject area information is more important to smaller

29


institutions with a narrower IRC profile) but they are also more likely not to record such information at all. Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas Almost two-thirds of responding HEIs (61%) hold centrally the number of postgraduate research students located overseas, while another third (35%) hold them at school, department or faculty level. Half (53%) of HEIs record such information but less than one-third (30%) collate and report it (Table 43). Table 43 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 70 40 81

% 53 30 61

Total 132 132 132

46

35

132

5 20

4 15

132 132

Post-92 universities (63%) and large HEIs (70%) are most likely to record the number of postgraduate research students located overseas and the most likely to collate and report on such information (41% and 43% respectively). Post-92s are also the most likely to hold such information centrally (76%, Table 44). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 47). Table 44 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 59 34

Type Post-92 N % 63 29

SI/GC N % 26 6

Large N % 70 38

Size Medium N % 54 22

Small N % 28 9

16

28

19

41

4

17

23

43

8

20

8

25

33

57

35

76

10

44

35

65

28

68

15

47

24

41

17

37

4

17

26

48

13

32

6

19

4 4

7 7

1 2

2 4

12

52

2

4

2 4

5 10

3 12

9 38

Recording the type of international partners in research supervision Less than half (45%) of responding HEIs hold such information centrally and approximately a third record (37%) or hold it at school, department or faculty level (35%). Less than one fifth (17%) collate and report on the type of international partners in research supervision (Table 45).

30


Table 45 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision: overall Record

N 49

% 37

Total 132

Collated/reported on

23

17

132

Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all

59

45

132

46

35

132

17

13

132

Does not apply

25

19

132

Post-92 (48%) and large HEIs (54%) are the most likely to record the type of international partners in research supervision, and also the most likely to collate/report on this information, though in only about a quarter of cases. Post-92 (59%) and medium sized HEIs (59%) are most likely to hold this information centrally and at school, department or faculty level. This is not the case in around half of SI/GCs (57%) or small institutions (47%, Table 46). There is insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 48). Table 46 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 40 23

Type Post-92 N % 48 22

SI/GC N % 13 3

Large N % 54 29

Size Medium N % 34 14

Small N % 16 5

9

16

12

26

2

9

13

24

5

12

5

16

24

41

27

59

5

22

24

44

24

59

8

25

20

35

18

39

6

26

29

54

9

22

3

9

10 7

17 12

7 4

15 9

13

57

5 4

9 7

9 5

22 12

3 15

9 47

Recording the countries where students are located Less than half of responding HEIs (49%) recorded where overseas research students were located and just over half (55%) held this information centrally, with another third holding this information at school, department or faculty level (36%). Around a quarter (27%) collated/reported on this information (Table 47). Table 47 - Recording the countries where students are located: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 64 36 73

% 49 27 55

Total 132 132 132

47

36

132

7 20

5 15

132 132

31


Post-92 (59%) and large institutions (65%) are the most likely to record where overseas research supervised students are located. Over half of pre-92s (53%) and 49% of medium sized HEIs also record this information, but only a fifth (22%) of SI/GCs and 25% of small HEIs do so. Around two-thirds of post-92s and medium sized HEIs hold such information centrally; post-92s (35%) and large HEIs (35%) are the most likely to collate and report on such figures (Table 48). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 49). Table 48 - Recording the countries where students are located: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 53 31

Type Post-92 N % 59 27

SI/GC N % 22 5

Large N % 65 35

Size Medium N % 48 20

Small N % 25 8

16

28

16

35

3

13

19

35

9

22

7

22

30

52

31

67

9

39

31

57

26

63

13

41

24

41

17

37

5

22

27

50

12

29

7

22

5 4

9 7

2 3

4 7

11

48

1 2

2 4

2 5

5 12

4 11

13 34

Recording the location of overseas base students Summary Surprisingly little data is held on where overseas research students are located geographically, or with what kind of partner institutions. Medium sized and Post-92 institutions are most likely to record the data and hold it centrally. For between a third and a half of small and specialised respondents these issues do not apply. Recording the topics/subjects of the research students Less than half of responding institutions record such information (46%) and hold it at school, department or faculty level (40%); less than a quarter collate this information to report on it (24%) but just over half (52%) hold it centrally (Table 49). Table 49 - Recording the topics / subjects of the research students: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 61 31 69

% 46 24 52

Total 132 132 132

53

40

132

8 19

6 14

132 132

Post-92 (57%) and large institutions (57%) are most likely to record the topics/subjects of their research students; less than a third of SI/GCs and small institutions do so (30% and 31%). Three-quarters of post-92s (74%) and 61% of

32


medium sized HEIs held this information centrally, as do 52% of large HEIs. Large HEIs are most likely to hold this at school, department or faculty level, though only 25% of small institutions. In 12% of post-92s and almost 10% of medium and small HEIs this is not recorded at all and for around a third of both SI/GCs and small HEIs it does not apply (Table 50). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 50). Table 50 - Recording the topics / subjects of the research students: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 47 27

Type Post-92 N % 57 26

SI/GC N % 30 7

Large N % 57 31

Size Medium N % 46 19

Small N % 31 10

11

19

14

30

5

22

14

26

7

17

9

28

24

41

34

74

9

39

28

52

25

61

14

35

25

43

20

44

7

30

30

56

14

34

8

25

7 7

12 12

1 2

2 4

8

35

1 4

2 7

4 4

10 10

3 9

9 28

Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country Less than a fifth of responding institutions record, held centrally or collated and reported on this information, and almost a third (30%) do not record the information at all. Less than half (41%) held this information at school, department or faculty level (Table 51). Table 51 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 25 18 24

% 19 14 18

Total 132 132 132

54

41

132

40 14

30 11

132 132

SI/GCs are the only HEI category that record this to a significant extent, in 39% of cases; they are also the most likely to collate/report (30%) and hold centrally (48%) the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country. In each of the categories between 37% and 45% of institutions held this at school, department or faculty level. However, for around a third of pre-92, post-92, large and medium HEIs it is not recorded at all (Table 52). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 51).

33


Table 52 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 10 6

Type Post-92 N % 20 9

SI/GC N % 39 9

Large N % 17 9

Size Medium N % 20 8

Small N % 22 7

2

3

9

20

9

39

9

17

8

20

7

22

4

7

8

17

11

48

6

11

7

17

10

31

25

43

18

39

10

44

24

44

17

42

12

38

21 7

36 12

16 2

35 4

2 3

9 13

18 3

33 6

15 4

37 10

6 5

19 16

Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfunded international research There is a very similar pattern to the previous section (recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country). Less than a fifth of responding institutions recorded, held centrally or collated and reported on this information, and almost a third (29%) did not record the information at all. Less than half (42%) held this information at school, department or faculty level (Table 53). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country and very similar patters of behaviour by type and size of institution (Appendix Tables 52, 53 and 54). Table 53 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfunded international research: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 23 17 28

% 17 13 21

Total 132 132 132

55

42

132

38 16

29 12

132 132

Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is taking place A fifth of institutions record (20%) and hold information on the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is taking place centrally (22%) and just below half hold it at school, department or faculty level (45%). A quarter of institutions do not hold this information at all (Table 54).

34


Table 54 - Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is taking place: overall Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all Does not apply

N 26 19 29

% 20 14 22

Total 132 132 132

59

45

132

32 16

24 12

132 132

SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record the countries where collaboration is taking place (44%) and hold this centrally (44%). They are also the most likely to collate/report on this information (35%) along with small HEIs (28%). Almost a third of pre-92, post-92 and medium sized institutions and a quarter of large institutions do not hold this information at all (Table 55). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 55). Table 55 - Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is taking place: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 12.1 7

Type Post-92 N % 17.4 8

SI/GC N % 10 43.5

Large N % 16.7 9

Size Medium N % 22.0 9

Small N % 21.9 7

3

5.2

8

17.4

8

34.8

6

11.1

4

9.8

9

28.1

8

13.8

10

21.7

10

43.5

9

16.7

10

24.4

9

28.1

27

46.6

21

45.7

10

43.5

28

51.9

18

43.9

12

37.5

17 7

29.3 12.1

13 3

28.3 6.5

1 4

4.3 17.4

14 4

25.9 7.4

12 4

29.3 9.8

5 6

15.6 18.8

Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research Approximately a sixth of institutions record (17%) and hold centrally (15%) information on the topics or subjects of unfunded international research and just less than half hold it at school, department or faculty level (44%). More than a quarter of institutions (28%) do not hold this information at all (Table 56). Table 56 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research: overall Record

N 22

% 17

Total 132

Collated/reported on

16

12

132

Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all

20

15

132

58

44

132

37

28

132

Does not apply

19

14

132

35


SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record (44%) and hold centrally (44%) the topics/subjects of unfunded international research, and the most likely to collate and report on it (26%). Pre-92, post-92, large and medium sized institutions are the most likely not to record this information at all (Table 57). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 56). Table 57 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research: by type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 5 3

Type Post-92 N % 17 8

SI/GC N % 44 10

Large N % 15 8

Size Medium N % 15 6

Small N % 22 7

1

2

9

20

6

26

6

11

3

7

7

22

3

5

6

13

10

44

5

9

5

12

9

28

26

45

21

46

10

44

27

50

18

44

12

38

21 8

36 14

15 3

33 7

1 5

4 22

16 5

30 9

16 4

39 10

5 7

16 22

Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded international research A significant minority of responding HEIs (39%) do not record this information at all and where they do for a third (34%) it is in the school, department or faculty rather than centrally. Overall only 14% record it and 11% collate and report the information (Table 58). Table 58 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded international research: overall Record

N 19

% 14

Total 132

Collated/reported on

15

11

132

Held centrally Held in dept/school/faculty Not record at all

18

14

132

45

34

132

52

39

132

Does not apply

18

14

132

SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record this information and hold it centrally (39%). By contrast only 5% of pre-92 and record and hold it centrally. Over half of large HEIs and almost half of pre-92s (48%) and post-92s (44) do not record it at all. The issue do not apply for one fifth of SI/GCs and small institutions (Table 59). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 57).

36


Table 59 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded international research: type and size

Record Collated/reported on Held centrally Held in dept/school/ Faculty Not record at all Does not apply

Pre-92 N % 5 3

Type Post-92 N % 13 6

SI/GC N % 39 9

Large N % 11 6

Size Medium N % 15 6

Small N % 19 6

2

3

8

17

5

22

5

9

4

10

6

19

3

5

5

11

9

39

3

6

6

15

8

25

20

35

15

33

9

39

16

30

17

42

11

34

28 7

48 12

20 4

44 9

3 5

13 22

28 5

52 9

16 4

39 10

7 7

22 22

Recording data on unfunded collaboration Summary The majority of institutions are content to hold information on unfunded research collaborations at department, school or faculty level if they hold it at all. Around half of large and pre-92 institutions do not hold such information. However SI/GCs are the most likely to collate, report and hold this information centrally as well as at more local levels. Overall summary of recording of IRC The recording of IRC information is more likely to occur at central level if it is related to income; otherwise, IRC information is likely to be held at more local levels. This is reflected in the recording of information on unfunded research collaborations, which is recorded more carefully by specialised institutions than other kinds. This perhaps reflects the fact that larger institutions are more financially driven institutions, while SI/GCs value other types of international research collaborations such as those based on subject-based academic research or knowledge sharing.

4.4 The uses and distribution of information Almost all (95%) responding institutions use information recorded on IRC in their RAE submissions, over 80% use it in regular reports to committees or managers and in response to ad hoc enquiries and 79% use it in regular reports to external bodies (Table 60).

37


Table 60- How this information is used: overall N

%

Total

Is the information used in the RAE submission? Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers? Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies? Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?

117

95

123

99

83

120

94

79

119

100

86

117

Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?

8

50

16

Post-92 HEIs are the most likely group to use this information in submissions to the RAE (100%) as opposed to 86% of SI/GCs. However, SI/GCs are more likely to use it in internal reports to committees and managers. Large HEIs are marginally more likely to use this information in their RAE submissions and in response to ad hoc enquiries while small HEIs are marginally more likely to use it in internal reports to committees or managers (Table 61). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 58). Table 61 - How this information is used: by type and size Pre-92 N % Is the information used in the RAE submission? Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers? Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies? Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries? Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?

Type Post-92 N %

SI/GC N %

Large N %

Size Medium N %

Small N %

50

94

45

100

18

86

51

100

35

92

27

90

44

82

33

79

18

90

40

82

31

80

24

86

44

83

33

77

14

74

41

84

29

74

21

78

46

87

35

85

16

84

44

92

31

82

22

82

5

50

3

50

-

-

7

78

-

-

1

25

How the information is pulled together and provided to strategic groups or roles It is the responsibility of one person or group to pull together information recorded on IRC for strategic groups or roles in 57% of all responding HEIs. This is most often the case in SI/GCs (82%), small HEIs (68%) and in post-92 institutions (64%) and least common in pre-92 (43) and medium sized institutions (48%, Table 62).

38


Table 62 - One group or person who collates information recorded on IRC for strategic groups or roles? N

%

Total

All responding HEIs

73

57

128

England

57

59

97

Scotland

6

40

15

Wales

7

88

8

Northern Ireland

1

33

3

Pre

25

43

58

Post

28

64

44

SI/GC

18

82

22

Large

31

59

53

Medium

19

48

40

Small

21

68

31

39


5. Conclusion Strategic approach Whist institutions do have high level individuals responsible for research and internationalisation and do have strategies for both and do have institutional research committee structures, it is not the norm for those to refer to IRC, and where they do refer to IRC it tends not to be to a great degree of specificity. Almost all HEIs have a research strategy, two thirds have an internationalisation strategy and less than half have a combined strategy. Pre-92 HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy. Combined strategies are also more likely in large institutions. Internationalisation seems to be more important to pre-92 institutions than other types of HEI and they are more likely to have a strategy that combines internationalisation and research. For post-92 institutions these are more likely to be dealt with separately. HEIs are more likely to have strategies that specify partner type and particular countries and regions than they are to specify subject area. Smaller and specialist institutions (SI/GCs) are more likely to specify details of partners, regions and subject areas favoured while larger institutions are more likely to produce strategies containing income targets.

Operational structures and processes Overall HEIs have a considerable amount of IRC across all the identified forms of IRC. For all HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC. However, there is quite a large discrepancy between the nature of international research collaborations by type and size, for example few small HEIs or SI/GCs receive international or national public research funding and also have less international post-graduate research students. Our findings suggest that the larger the institution the more likely it is to have committees at school/department/faculty level dealing with research and to have separate committees dealing with postgraduate research, and that this is general across HEI types. Most such committees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent. There seems to be a discrepancy between the level of activity engaged in by HEIs and the level of strategic overview. A quarter of lead persons for all types of research are likely to have significant responsibility for IRC and over half the responsibility to some extent. This is the same across all the different roles. Responsibility for postgraduate offices most often falls within the Registry (or equivalent) or research office, though in larger institutions (pre- and post-92) there is more likelihood that responsibility will be spread among other areas, often at research centre or faculty level. Smaller and specialist institutions are more likely to centralise responsibility.

Recording information about international research collaborations There is a greater likelihood that income records of UK and overseas funded research collaborations will be kept than the actual location, partner details or subject areas of such linkages, and while general this is even more true for larger institutions. On issues less directly related to income, such as the recording of details

40


of partners, subject areas and countries where IRC occurs, information is more likely to be held in departments, faculties and schools. Small institutions and SI/GCs appear more likely to collate and report on information by subject area (perhaps because subject area information is more important to smaller institutions with a narrower IRC profile) but they are also more likely not to record such information at all. Surprisingly little data are held centrally on where overseas research students are located geographically, or with what kind of partner institutions. Medium sized and Post-92 institutions are most likely to record and hold data centrally. For between a third and a half of small and specialised respondents these issues do not apply. The majority of institutions are content to hold information on unfunded research collaborations at department, school or faculty level if they hold it at all. Around half of large and pre-92 institutions do not hold such information at all. However SI/GCs are the most likely to collate, report and hold this information centrally as well as at more local levels.

The uses and distribution of information Despite the variability by institution type and size there is a relatively high degree of uniformity regarding the usefulness of IRC data, with all types of HEI almost as likely to use it for a variety of purposes relating to their external image (RAE, external bodies and publicity material where appropriate) and their own internal reporting. Collation of the various strands of IRC information is more likely to be concentrated in smaller and more specialised institutions, reflecting the structures and processes for accumulating and reporting such information.

There does seem to be an interaction between size and type of institution working at different levels and in different ways throughout our findings. For example there is a tendency for pre-92 and post-92 institutions to be more involved with funded IRC and to have research links through postgraduate students, and these institutions are also likely to be larger HEIs than the specialist institutions that exhibit a different set of IRC behaviours and relationships. As we have seen, SI/GC and smaller institutions are more likely to be interested in unfunded research links between academics and to record information centrally. It follows that responsibilities are structured in relation to size and financial importance: there is more of a tendency to concentrate responsibilities and hold information centrally in small and SI/GC institutions, perhaps because either internationalisation and research links are more important to these institutions or because these institutions are not large enough to devolve such responsibilities to department, school or faculty level. In SI/GCs where individual specialist subject areas (departments, schools or faculties) might be expected to have more autonomy, it could be that senior faculty members also have senior management roles and responsibility at a lower level would be unnecessary duplication. Smaller and SI/GCs are more interested in unfunded research, perhaps because they value the prestige and the development of their IRC profile, coming from a lower base. For larger and pre- Post-92s on the other hand, international research collaborations may be a long-entrenched and important element of their business

41


model and therefore that financial information has a much higher value to these organisations. Larger organisations also have additional layers of responsibility at department, school or faculty level and it is at these levels that less financial information can be held. Authors Colin McCaig Sue Drew Dave Marsden Peggy Haughton CEIR & CRE, Sheffield Hallam University, January 2008

42


Appendix I - Introductory letter to HEIs 10 May 2007

Dear colleague We would be very grateful for your help with a research study we are conducting on behalf of the DfES. The aim is to "reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor and coordinate within their own institutions any research collaboration that takes place between the institution and those abroad". The DfES is interested in exploring the extent to which HEIs are developing agendas around internationalisation and such coordination is being seen as an indicator. The findings will feed into the Prime Minister’s Initiative for International Education so will play an important role in the development of the higher education sector as a whole. Please can you note that the focus of this research is international research collaborations only, rather than research in general, and that we do not require any information about actual collaborations but, rather, about institutional processes. All information provided by HEIs will be confidential to the research team and will be aggregated and anonymised in reporting to the DfES. It will not be possible to identify any individual HEI in any report published from this survey. We hope that you yourself will find it helpful to complete our questionnaire, as the pilot for our study has suggested that this may help in pulling together information on this topic. The study should provide valuable information for the sector as a whole. Our pilot has suggested that those with a central role dealing with externally funded research project might be the best starting point for us. We are only sending one request to each HEI and very much hope that you will be able to complete it for us. We think that you may need to consult others in your institution. This may include whoever is centrally responsible for research degrees and others with an institutional overview or a research responsibility in departments/ schools/faculties (e.g. assistant deans). We would be very grateful if you could complete and return the attached questionnaire by 8th June in the pre-paid envelope provided. Alternatively, you can complete it online at http://creonline.shu.ac.uk/tne.pdf There is no statutory obligation for this information, however your help would be greatly appreciated. A member of the research team will telephone you in the next few weeks to see if you have any queries or concerns. Thank you very much for your help. Yours sincerely

43


Appendix II - Additional tables International Research Collaboration in UK Higher Education Institutions Table 1 - PVC responsibilities: by country

PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation PVC responsible for research PVC responsible for internationalisation

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland N %

N

%

N

%

N

%

17

23.9

4

28.6

1

20.0

2

100

77

86.5

9

81.8

7

100.0

1

50

47

56.0

9

75.0

2

33.3

0

-

Table 2 - Research strategy by country

Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?*

England

Scotland

N

%

N

%

N

%

30

43.5

7

53.8

1

20.0

0

-

76

95.0

12

100.0

8

100.0

3

100.0

52

70.3

8

72.7

4

66.7

1

100.0

5

25.0

0

-

-

-

-

-

44

Wales

Northern Ireland N %


Table 3 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by country England

Scotland

Wales

NI

Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify? Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify? Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify? Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?

45

Yes

%

No

%

NA

%

30

43.5

38

55.1

1

1.4

76

95.0

3

3.8

1

1.3

52

70.3

20

27.0

2

2.7

5

25.0

4

20.0

11

55.0

7

53.8

6

46.2

-

-

12

100.0

-

-

-

-

8

72.7

3

27.3

-

-

-

-

1

100.0

-

-

1

20.0

4

80.0

-

-

3

100.0

-

-

-

-

1

100.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

100.0

-

-

3

100.0

-

-

-

-

1

100.0

-

-

-

-

1

100.0

-

-

-

-


Table 4 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by Type Pre-92

Post-92

SI/GC

Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify? Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify? Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?

Yes

%

No

%

NA

%

26

61.9

16

38.1

-

-

39

95.1

2

4.9

-

-

26

72.2

10

27.8

-

-

3

37.5

2

25.0

3

37.5

9

28.1

23

71.9

-

-

39

97.5

-

-

1

2.5

26

72.2

9

25.0

1

2.8

2

18.2

2

18.2

7

63.6

3

21.4

10

71.4

1

7.1

22

95.7

1

4.3

-

-

13

65.0

6

30.0

1

5.0

-

-

1

50.0

1

50.0

Table 5 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by Size Large

Medium

Small

Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify? Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify? Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a research strategy? Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy? Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?

46

Yes

%

No

%

NA

%

19

50.0

19

50.0

-

-

38

92.7

2

4.9

1

2.4

25

69.4

10

27.8

1

2.8

4

30.8

3

23.1

6

46.2

12

44.4

15

55.6

-

-

33

100.0

-

-

-

-

22

73.3

8

26.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

100.0

7

30.4

15

65.2

1

4.3

29

96.7

1

3.3

-

-

18

69.2

7

26.9

1

3.8

1

16.7

2

33.3

3

50.0


Table 6 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by country England

Scotland

Wales

NI

Does your strategy... specify particular countries or regions? refer to a focus on specific types of partnership? specify subject areas? have income targets? other targets?* specify particular countries or regions? refer to a focus on specific types of partnership? specify subject areas? have income targets? other targets?* specify particular countries or regions? refer to a focus on specific types of partnership? specify subject areas? have income targets? other targets?* specify particular countries or regions? refer to a focus on specific types of partnership? specify subject areas? have income targets? other targets?*

Yes

%

No

%

NA

%

29

39.2%

38

51.4%

7

9.5%

39

53.4%

26

35.6%

8

11.0%

18 8 12

24.7% 10.8% 19.7%

45 58 38

61.6% 78.4% 62.3%

10 8 11

13.7% 10.8% 18.0%

5

45.5%

5

45.5%

1

9.1%

8

72.7%

2

18.2%

1

9.1%

3 3 2

27.3% 27.3% 25.0%

7 7 4

63.6% 63.6% 50.0%

1 1 2

9.1% 9.1% 25.0%

1

50.0%

1

50.0%

1

50.0%

1 1 1

50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

50.0%

1

1 1

50.0% 50.0%

1

50.0%

4

100.0%

2

66.7%

1

33.3%

3 1

75.0% 33.3%

1 2 1

25.0% 66.7% 100.0%

Table 7 - Central committees: by country

Does your institution have a central committee responsible for research and internationalisation? Does your institution have a central committee responsible for research? Does your institution have a central committee responsible for internationalisation? Does your institution have another central committee dealing with research/ internationalisation, please specify?*

England

Scotland

N

%

N

%

N

%

9

14.1

2

18.2

1

16.7

2

66.7

88

97.8

13

92.9

7

87.5

3

100.0

32

40.5

4

36.4

2

40.0

2

100.0

4

25.0

-

-

-

-

1

100.0

47

Wales

Northern Ireland N %


Table 8 & 9 - Central committees: by Type and Size Does your institution have... a central committee responsible for research and internationalisation? a central committee responsible for research? a central committee responsible for internationalisation? another central committee please specify?*

Pre-92 N %

Type Post-92 N %

SI/GC N %

Size Medium N %

Large N %

Small N %

8

20.0

3

9.7

3

23.1

4

10.8

5

20.0

5

22.7

49

94.2

42

97.7

21

100.0

48

94.1

35

97.2

29

100.0

20

45.5

11

30.6

9

52.9

18

43.9

10

32.3

12

48.0

2

22.2

1

14.3

8

47.1

1

16.7

1

16.7

2

40.0

Table 10 - Level of research decision making: by country Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for.... the research strategy? externally funded research? the RAE? research students/studentships? unfunded research?

England

Scotland

Wales

N 91 77 86

% 94.8 82.8 90.5

N 14 12 13

% 93.3 80.0 86.7

N 8 6 7

% 100.0 75.0 87.5

Northern Ireland N % 100.0 4 100.0 4 100.0 4

56

60.9

8

57.1

3

37.5

4

100.0

49

53.8

8

57.1

4

50.0

1

33.3

Tables 11 & 12 - Level of research decision making: by Type and Size Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for.... the research strategy? externally funded research? the RAE? research students/studentships? unfunded research?

Pre-92 N %

Type Post-92 N %

SI/GC N %

Large N %

Size Medium N %

Small N %

55

94.8

43

100.0

20

87.0

50

94.3

39

100.0

29

90.6

50

89.3

33

78.6

17

73.9

37

74.0

36

92.3

27

84.4

53

94.6

39

88.6

19

82.6

44

86.3

39

97.5

28

87.5

36

64.3

22

52.4

14

66.7

28

53.8

26

70.3

18

60.0

26

47.3

21

51.2

15

71.4

21

42.0

21

56.8

20

66.7

48


Table 13 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?: overall Yes, to a significant extent Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?

Yes, to some extent

No

Count 18

74

37

14.0%

57.4%

28.7%

%

Table 14 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?: by country Yes, to a significant extent Country

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?

Count

Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations? Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations? Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations? Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?

Count

Yes, to some extent

No

13

57

27

13.4%

58.8%

27.8%

3

7

5

20.0%

46.7%

33.3%

1

6

1

12.5%

75.0%

12.5%

1

2

33.3%

66.7%

%

%

Count %

Count %

Count

1

% 100.0%

49


Table 15 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?: by type Yes, to a significant extent Pre / Post / SI

Pre

Post

SI/GC

Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?

Count

Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations? Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?

Count

Yes, to some extent

No

10

38

9

17.5%

66.7%

15.8%

3

28

14

6.7%

62.2%

31.1%

5

6

11

22.7%

27.3%

50.0%

%

%

Count %

Table 16 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?: by type Yes, to a significant extent Size of institution

Large

Medium

Small

Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?

Count

Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations? Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?

Count

Yes, to some extent

No

5

39

9

9.4%

73.6%

17.0%

7

22

11

17.5%

55.0%

27.5%

6

11

14

19.4%

35.5%

45.2%

%

%

Count %

Table 17 - Monitoring strategies by country Country

England

Is the monitoring?

Count

Broad brush 22

Fairly specific 27

40.0%

49.1%

% Scotland

Is the monitoring?

Count %

Wales

Is the monitoring?

Count

Is the monitoring?

6 10.9%

4

4

1

44.4%

44.4%

11.1%

1

1

50.0%

50.0%

4

% Northern Ireland

Detailed

100.0%

Count %

50


Table 18 - Monitoring strategies by type Pre / Post / SI

Pre

Is the monitoring?

Count

Broad brush 18

Fairly specific 16

47.4%

42.1%

10.5%

8

7

3

44.4%

38.9%

16.7%

4

9

1

28.6%

64.3%

7.1%

% Post

Is the monitoring?

Count %

SI/GC

Is the monitoring?

Count %

Detailed 4

Table 19 - Monitoring strategies by size Broad brush Size of institution

Large

Is the monitoring?

Count %

Medium

Is the monitoring?

Count %

Small

Is the monitoring?

Count %

51

Fairly specific

Detailed

12

14

4

40.0%

46.7%

13.3%

13

8

2

56.5%

34.8%

8.7%

5

10

2

29.4%

58.8%

11.8%


Table 20 - Types of international research collaboration: by country No Country

England

Scotland

Wales

Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies?

Count

Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations? Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies? Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas? Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner? Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues? Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies? Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations? Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies? Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas? Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner? Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues? Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies? Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations? Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies? Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas? Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with

Count

%

Yes 20

79

20.2%

79.8%

25

74

25.3%

74.7%

15

84

15.2%

84.8%

% Count % Count % Count

24

75

24.2%

75.8%

34

65

34.3%

65.7%

8

91

8.1%

91.9%

4

11

26.7%

73.3%

2

13

13.3%

86.7%

2

13

13.3%

86.7%

7

8

46.7%

53.3%

7

8

46.7%

53.3%

4

11

26.7%

73.3%

2

6

25.0%

75.0%

3

5

37.5%

62.5%

4

4

50.0%

50.0%

% Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count

5

3

62.5%

37.5%

5

3

62.5%

37.5%

%

52


an overseas partner?

Northern Ireland

Open University

Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues? Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies? Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations? Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies? Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas? Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner? Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues? Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies? Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations? Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies? Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas? Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner? Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues?

Count

2

6

25.0%

75.0%

1

3

25.0%

75.0%

2

2

50.0%

50.0%

1

3

25.0%

75.0%

2

2

50.0%

50.0%

2

2

50.0%

50.0%

2

2

50.0%

50.0%

% Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count % Count

1 100.0% 1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0%

53


Table 21 - Responsibility of lead person: by country Yes Country

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

Does your

Count

%

No

N/A

78

7

2

89.7%

8.0%

2.3%

51

24

2

66.2%

31.2%

2.6%

34

36

4

45.9%

48.6%

5.4%

78

6

1

91.8%

7.1%

1.2%

%

Count % Count %

Count %

28

17

8

52.8%

32.1%

15.1%

13

1

92.9%

7.1%

% Count

9

4

1

64.3%

28.6%

7.1%

6

6

1

46.2%

46.2%

7.7%

11

2

1

78.6%

14.3%

7.1%

3

2

60.0%

40.0%

%

Count % Count %

Count %

7

1

87.5%

12.5%

% Count

5

2

1

62.5%

25.0%

12.5%

3

2

1

50.0%

33.3%

16.7%

6

1

1

75.0%

12.5%

12.5%

%

Count % Count %

Count %

54

3

1

1

60.0%

20.0%

20.0%

4


Ireland

Open University

department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0%

55


Table 22 - Responsibility of lead person: by type Yes Pre / Post / SI

Pre

Post

SI/GC

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

%

No

N/A

47

2

3

90.4%

3.8%

5.8%

30

15

4

61.2%

30.6%

8.2%

19

20

7

41.3%

43.5%

15.2%

44

4

3

86.3%

7.8%

5.9%

%

Count % Count %

Count %

10

10

7

37.0%

37.0%

25.9%

40

3

1

90.9%

6.8%

2.3%

24

12

66.7%

33.3%

16

18

47.1%

52.9%

39

2

95.1%

4.9%

17

8

2

63.0%

29.6%

7.4%

16

2

88.9%

11.1%

13

3

81.3%

18.8%

9

6

60.0%

40.0%

14

3

82.4%

17.6%

% Count %

Count % Count %

Count % % Count %

Count % Count %

Count %

56

7

2

77.8%

22.2%


Table 23 - Responsibility of lead person: by size Yes Size of institution

Large

Medium

Small

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research? Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students? Are these combined, and if so how?

Count

%

No

N/A

47

2

95.9%

4.1%

30

12

1

69.8%

27.9%

2.3%

17

21

3

41.5%

51.2%

7.3%

43

4

91.5%

8.5%

%

Count % Count %

Count %

14

10

4

50.0%

35.7%

14.3%

32

2

3

86.5%

5.4%

8.1%

20

10

3

60.6%

30.3%

9.1%

16

11

3

53.3%

36.7%

10.0%

31

1

3

88.6%

2.9%

8.6%

12

4

3

63.2%

21.1%

15.8%

24

3

1

85.7%

10.7%

3.6%

17

8

68.0%

32.0%

11

12

1

45.8%

50.0%

4.2%

23

4

85.2%

14.8%

% Count %

Count % Count %

Count % % Count %

Count % Count %

Count %

57

8

6

2

50.0%

37.5%

12.5%


Table 24 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by country Yes, to a significant extent Country

England

Scotland

Wales

Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research

Count

Yes, to some extent

No

21

45

10

27.6%

59.2%

13.2%

16

30

3

32.7%

61.2%

6.1%

9

21

4

26.5%

61.8%

11.8%

24

33

13

34.3%

47.1%

18.6%

8

12

1

38.1%

57.1%

4.8%

2

5

5

16.7%

41.7%

41.7%

3

3

2

37.5%

37.5%

25.0%

2

3

1

33.3%

50.0%

16.7%

3

2

5

30.0%

20.0%

50.0%

%

%

Count %

Count %

Count % Count %

Count %

Count %

Count %

Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

3

2

16.7%

50.0%

33.3%

1

1

2

25.0%

25.0%

50.0%

1

1

1

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

%

Count %

Count %

58


Northern Ireland

Open University

specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

2

1

1

50.0%

25.0%

25.0%

1

3

1

20.0%

60.0%

20.0%

2

1

66.7%

33.3%

%

Count % Count %

Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

% 100.0%

59


Table 25 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by type Yes, to a significant extent Pre / Post / SI

Pre

Post

SI/GC

Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research

Count

Yes, to some extent

No

14

25

8

29.8%

53.2%

17.0%

10

17

2

34.5%

58.6%

6.9%

7

11

1

36.8%

57.9%

5.3%

17

17

9

39.5%

39.5%

20.9%

4

4

50.0%

50.0%

4

28

6

10.5%

73.7%

15.8%

4

16

2

18.2%

72.7%

9.1%

2

11

3

12.5%

68.8%

18.8%

7

16

8

22.6%

51.6%

25.8%

3

10

2

20.0%

66.7%

13.3%

6

2

5

46.2%

15.4%

38.5%

6

3

3

50.0%

25.0%

25.0%

3

4

2

33.3%

44.4%

22.2%

%

%

Count %

Count %

Count % Count %

Count %

Count %

Count %

Count % Count %

Count %

Count %

60


specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

6

3

3

50.0%

25.0%

25.0%

2

2

50.0%

50.0%

%

Count %

61


Table 26 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by size Yes, to a significant extent Size of institution

Large

Medium

Small

Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on unfunded research

Count

Yes, to some extent

No

9

29

7

20.0%

64.4%

15.6%

8

17

2

29.6%

63.0%

7.4%

4

9

2

26.7%

60.0%

13.3%

12

14

10

33.3%

38.9%

27.8%

5

6

2

38.5%

46.2%

15.4%

8

19

5

25.0%

59.4%

15.6%

6

12

2

30.0%

60.0%

10.0%

5

10

3

27.8%

55.6%

16.7%

11

13

5

37.9%

44.8%

17.2%

3

7

30.0%

70.0%

7

7

7

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

6

7

3

37.5%

43.8%

18.8%

3

7

1

27.3%

63.6%

9.1%

%

%

Count %

Count %

Count % Count %

Count %

Count %

Count %

Count % Count %

Count %

Count %

62


specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

7

9

5

33.3%

42.9%

23.8%

1

3

25.0%

75.0%

%

Count %

63


Table 27 - School / department / faculty level committees: by country Yes Country

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty? Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees? Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty? Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees? Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty? Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees? Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty? Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees? Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty? Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees?

Count % Count

No

N/A

74

15

5

78.7%

16.0%

5.3%

48

34

3

56.5%

40.0%

3.5%

14

1

93.3%

6.7%

9

5

64.3%

35.7%

6

2

75.0%

25.0%

3

5

37.5%

62.5%

%

Count % Count %

Count % Count %

Count % Count

2

2

50.0%

50.0%

2

1

66.7%

33.3%

%

Count % Count

1 100.0% 1

% 100.0%

64


Table 28 - IRC responsibility at school level: by country Yes, to a significant extent Country

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

%

Yes, to some extent

No

12

51

8

16.9%

71.8%

11.3%

8

30

8

17.4%

65.2%

17.4%

1

8

3

8.3%

66.7%

25.0%

1

4

2

14.3%

57.1%

28.6%

1

3

2

16.7%

50.0%

33.3%

1

1

1

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

% Count % Count % Count % Count % Count

1

% 100.0% Count

1

1

50.0%

50.0%

%

65


Table 29 - IRC responsibility at school level: by type Yes, to a significant extent Pre / Post / SI

Pre

Post

SI/GC

Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

%

Yes, to some extent

No

10

32

1

23.3%

74.4%

2.3%

8

19

5

25.0%

59.4%

15.6%

3

25

10

7.9%

65.8%

26.3%

3

12

6

14.3%

57.1%

28.6%

1

5

3

11.1%

55.6%

33.3%

4

1

80.0%

20.0%

% Count % Count % Count % Count %

66


Table 30 - IRC responsibility at school level: by size Yes, to a significant extent Size of institution

Large

Medium

Small

Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations? Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?

Count

%

Yes, to some extent 7

29

6

16.7%

69.0%

14.3%

5

20

8

15.2%

60.6%

24.2%

6

24

5

17.1%

68.6%

14.3%

6

10

3

31.6%

52.6%

15.8%

1

9

3

7.7%

69.2%

23.1%

5

1

83.3%

16.7%

% Count % Count % Count % Count %

Table 31 - A central office for externally funded projects: overall Yes Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?

Count %

No

No

111

19

85.4%

14.6%

67


Table 32 - A central office for externally funded projects: by country Yes Country

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?

Count

Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects? Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects? Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects? Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?

Count

%

No 84

14

85.7%

14.3%

14

1

93.3%

6.7%

% Count

8

% 100.0% Count

2

1

66.7%

33.3%

% Count

1

% 100.0%

Table 33 - A central office for externally funded projects: by type Yes Pre / Post / SI

Pre

Post

SI/GC

Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?

Count

Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects? Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?

Count

%

No 56

2

96.6%

3.4%

38

7

84.4%

15.6%

15

7

68.2%

31.8%

% Count %

68


Table 34 - A central office for externally funded projects: by size Yes Size of institution

Large

Medium

Small

Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?

Count

Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects? Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?

Count

%

No 49

5

90.7%

9.3%

37

3

92.5%

7.5%

23

8

74.2%

25.8%

% Count %

Table 35 - Responsibility for the central office: by country Country England Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count

%

A senior manager for research

38

45.2%

A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent

12

14.3%

A senior manager for business or enterprise

16

19.0%

A senior manager in corporate planning

1

1.2%

Other, please specify

17

20.2%

Scotland Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count

%

Wales Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count

9

64.3%

2

25.0%

3

21.4%

3

37.5%

1

12.5%

2

25.0%

2

14.3%

Table 36 - Central postgraduate office: overall Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?

Count

%

Yes

105

80.8%

No

25

19.2%

%

69

Northern Ireland Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count

%

1

50.0%

1

50.0%

Open University Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count 1

% 100.0 %


Table 37 - Central postgraduate office: by country Yes Country

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?

Count

Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students? Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students? Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students? Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?

Count

%

No 81

17

82.7%

17.3%

13

2

86.7%

13.3%

6

2

75.0%

25.0%

2

1

66.7%

33.3%

% Count % Count % Count

1

% 100.0%

Table 38 - Central postgraduate office: by type Yes Pre / Post / SI

Pre

Post

SI/GC

Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?

Count

Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students? Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?

Count

%

No 48

10

82.8%

17.2%

40

5

88.9%

11.1%

15

7

68.2%

31.8%

% Count %

Table 39 - Central postgraduate office: by size Yes Size of institution

Large

Medium

Small

Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?

Count

Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students? Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?

Count

%

No 48

6

88.9%

11.1%

34

6

85.0%

15.0%

21

10

67.7%

32.3%

% Count %

70


Table 40 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by country Country England Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count

%

Scotland Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count

%

Wales Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count

%

A senior manager for research

24

30.4%

5

38.5%

2

33.3%

A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent

39

49.4%

5

38.5%

2

33.3%

A senior manager for business or enterprise

1

1.3%

1

7.7%

Other, please specify

15

19.0%

2

15.4%

2

Northern Ireland Under whose responsibility does it sit? Count

%

1

50.0%

1

50.0%

33.3%

Table 41 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: by country No England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count 30 41 21 62 98 93 4 4 4 12 15 14 2 5 2 5 8 7 2

% 30.3 41.4 21.2 62.6 99.0 93.9 26.7 26.7 26.7 80.0 100.0 93.3 25.0 62.5 25.0 62.5 100.0 87.5 50.0

Count 69 58 78 37 1 6 11 11 11 3

% 69.7 58.6 78.8 37.4 1.0 6.1 73.3 73.3 73.3 20.0

1 6 3 6 3

6.7 75.0 37.5 75.0 37.5

1 2

12.5 50.0

collated/reported on

3

75.0

1

25.0

held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply

2 4 4 3

50.0 100.0 100.0 75.0

2

50.0

1

25.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply

1 1 1

100.0 100.0 100.0

recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded

1 1

100.0 100.0

71


Table 42 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

31

31.3

68

68.7

collated/reported on

48

48.5

51

51.5

held centrally

26

26.3

73

73.7

held in dept/school/faculty

62

62.6

37

37.4

not recorded at all

98

99.0

1

1.0

does not apply

93

93.9

6

6.1

recorded

5

33.3

10

66.7

collated/reported on

6

40.0

9

60.0

held centrally

5

33.3

10

66.7

held in dept/school/faculty

12

80.0

3

20.0

not recorded at all

15

100.0

does not apply

14

93.3

1

6.7

recorded

2

25.0

6

75.0

collated/reported on

5

62.5

3

37.5

held centrally

2

25.0

6

75.0

held in dept/school/faculty

6

75.0

2

25.0

not recorded at all

8

100.0

does not apply

7

87.5

1

12.5

recorded

2

50.0

2

50.0

collated/reported on

3

75.0

1

25.0

held centrally

2

50.0

2

50.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

4

100.0

does not apply

3

75.0

1

25.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0

does not apply

1

100.0

72


Table 43 - Central Office titles Title: research office or support Pre-92 large Pre-92 medium Pre-92 small Post-92 large Post-92 medium Post-92 small SI/GC large Total Title: enterprise or business development Pre-92 large Pre-92 medium Post-92 large Post-92 medium SI/GC small Total Title: referring to funding Pre-92 large Pre-92 small Post-92 large Post-92 medium SI/GC small Total Title: linked to knowledge transfer Pre-92 medium Post-92 large Post-92 medium Post-92 small SI/GC medium SI/GC small Total Title: linked to development or innovation Pre-92 large Pre-92 medium Post-92 large Post-92 medium SI/GC small Total Title: linked to graduate study Post-92 large Post-92 medium Post-92 small Si/GC Total Grand total (including 3 others*)

N 4 3 2 4 2 1 4 20 N 5 7 8 4 1 25 N 4 2 6 1 1 14 N 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 N 3 7 1 1 1 13 N 2 1 1 1 5 88

*Three responding HEIs have a central office titled with reference to strategy (all post-92s, one small, two large).

73


Table 44 - Recording the types of international partners: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

51

51.5

48

48.5

collated/reported on

66

66.7

33

33.3

held centrally

45

45.5

54

54.5

held in dept/school/faculty

58

58.6

41

41.4

not recorded at all

87

87.9

12

12.1

does not apply

93

93.9

6

6.1

recorded

7

46.7

8

53.3

collated/reported on

11

73.3

4

26.7

held centrally

8

53.3

7

46.7

held in dept/school/faculty

10

66.7

5

33.3

not recorded at all

13

86.7

2

13.3

does not apply

15

100.0

recorded

4

50.0

4

50.0

collated/reported on

7

87.5

1

12.5

held centrally

3

37.5

5

62.5

held in dept/school/faculty

6

75.0

2

25.0

not recorded at all

7

87.5

1

12.5

does not apply

7

87.5

1

12.5

recorded

3

75.0

1

25.0

collated/reported on

4

100.0

held centrally

2

50.0

2

50.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

4

100.0

does not apply

3

75.0

1

25.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

74


Table 45 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

51

51.5

48

48.5

collated/reported on

66

66.7

33

33.3

held centrally

45

45.5

54

54.5

held in dept/school/faculty

58

58.6

41

41.4

not recorded at all

87

87.9

12

12.1

does not apply

93

93.9

6

6.1

recorded

7

46.7

8

53.3

collated/reported on

11

73.3

4

26.7

held centrally

8

53.3

7

46.7

held in dept/school/faculty

10

66.7

5

33.3

not recorded at all

13

86.7

2

13.3

does not apply

15

100.0

recorded

4

50.0

4

50.0

collated/reported on

7

87.5

1

12.5

held centrally

3

37.5

5

62.5

held in dept/school/faculty

6

75.0

2

25.0

not recorded at all

7

87.5

1

12.5

does not apply

7

87.5

1

12.5

recorded

3

75.0

1

25.0

collated/reported on

4

100.0

held centrally

2

50.0

2

50.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

4

100.0

does not apply

3

75.0

1

25.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

75


Table 46 - Recording of the subject of international research collaborations by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

52

52.5

47

47.5

collated/reported on

69

69.7

30

30.3

held centrally

49

49.5

50

50.5

held in dept/school/faculty

55

55.6

44

44.4

not recorded at all

92

92.9

7

7.1

does not apply

92

92.9

7

7.1

recorded

11

73.3

4

26.7

collated/reported on

14

93.3

1

6.7

held centrally

10

66.7

5

33.3

held in dept/school/faculty

8

53.3

7

46.7

not recorded at all

11

73.3

4

26.7

does not apply

15

100.0

recorded

4

50.0

4

50.0

collated/reported on

8

100.0

held centrally

4

50.0

4

50.0

held in dept/school/faculty

5

62.5

3

37.5

not recorded at all

6

75.0

2

25.0

does not apply

7

87.5

1

12.5

recorded

3

75.0

1

25.0

collated/reported on

4

100.0

held centrally

3

75.0

1

25.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

3

75.0

1

25.0

does not apply

3

75.0

1

25.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

76


Table 47 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

45

45.5

54

54.5

collated/reported on

69

69.7

30

30.3

held centrally

34

34.3

65

65.7

held in dept/school/faculty

61

61.6

38

38.4

not recorded at all

95

96.0

4

4.0

does not apply

88

88.9

11

11.1

recorded

7

46.7

8

53.3

collated/reported on

8

53.3

7

46.7

held centrally

7

46.7

8

53.3

held in dept/school/faculty

10

66.7

5

33.3

not recorded at all

14

93.3

1

6.7

does not apply

13

86.7

2

13.3

recorded

3

37.5

5

62.5

collated/reported on

7

87.5

1

12.5

held centrally

4

50.0

4

50.0

held in dept/school/faculty

6

75.0

2

25.0

not recorded at all

8

100.0

does not apply

6

75.0

2

25.0

recorded

2

50.0

2

50.0

collated/reported on

3

75.0

1

25.0

held centrally

3

75.0

1

25.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

4

100.0

does not apply

2

50.0

2

50.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

77


Table 48 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

58

58.6

41

41.4

collated/reported on

80

80.8

19

19.2

held centrally

50

50.5

49

49.5

held in dept/school/faculty

62

62.6

37

37.4

not recorded at all

89

89.9

10

10.1

does not apply

82

82.8

17

17.2

recorded

11

73.3

4

26.7

collated/reported on

12

80.0

3

20.0

held centrally

11

73.3

4

26.7

held in dept/school/faculty

10

66.7

5

33.3

not recorded at all

11

73.3

4

26.7

does not apply

13

86.7

2

13.3

recorded

7

87.5

1

12.5

collated/reported on

8

100.0

held centrally

6

75.0

2

25.0

held in dept/school/faculty

6

75.0

2

25.0

not recorded at all

5

62.5

3

37.5

does not apply

6

75.0

2

25.0

recorded

2

50.0

2

50.0

collated/reported on

3

75.0

1

25.0

held centrally

3

75.0

1

25.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

4

100.0

does not apply

2

50.0

2

50.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

78


Table 49 - Recording the countries where students are located: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

49

49.5

50

50.5

collated/reported on

72

72.7

27

27.3

held centrally

41

41.4

58

58.6

held in dept/school/faculty

60

60.6

39

39.4

not recorded at all

94

94.9

5

5.1

does not apply

88

88.9

11

11.1

recorded

8

53.3

7

46.7

collated/reported on

10

66.7

5

33.3

held centrally

8

53.3

7

46.7

held in dept/school/faculty

11

73.3

4

26.7

not recorded at all

14

93.3

1

6.7

does not apply

13

86.7

2

13.3

recorded

4

50.0

4

50.0

collated/reported on

6

75.0

2

25.0

held centrally

4

50.0

4

50.0

held in dept/school/faculty

5

62.5

3

37.5

not recorded at all

7

87.5

1

12.5

does not apply

6

75.0

2

25.0

recorded

2

50.0

2

50.0

collated/reported on

3

75.0

1

25.0

held centrally

3

75.0

1

25.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

4

100.0

does not apply

2

50.0

2

50.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

79


Table 50 - Recording the topics/subjects of the research students: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

51

51.5

48

48.5

collated/reported on

75

75.8

24

24.2

held centrally

43

43.4

56

56.6

held in dept/school/faculty

55

55.6

44

44.4

not recorded at all

94

94.9

5

5.1

does not apply

89

89.9

10

10.1

recorded

9

60.0

6

40.0

collated/reported on

11

73.3

4

26.7

held centrally

9

60.0

6

40.0

held in dept/school/faculty

10

66.7

5

33.3

not recorded at all

13

86.7

2

13.3

does not apply

13

86.7

2

13.3

recorded

4

50.0

4

50.0

collated/reported on

7

87.5

1

12.5

held centrally

4

50.0

4

50.0

held in dept/school/faculty

5

62.5

3

37.5

not recorded at all

7

87.5

1

12.5

does not apply

6

75.0

2

25.0

recorded

2

50.0

2

50.0

collated/reported on

3

75.0

1

25.0

held centrally

3

75.0

1

25.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

4

100.0

does not apply

2

50.0

2

50.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

80


Table 51 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

79

79.8

20

20.2

collated/reported on

82

82.8

17

17.2

held centrally

76

76.8

23

23.2

held in dept/school/faculty

55

55.6

44

44.4

not recorded at all

73

73.7

26

26.3

does not apply

90

90.9

9

9.1

recorded

14

93.3

1

6.7

collated/reported on

15

100.0

held centrally

13

86.7

2

13.3

held in dept/school/faculty

9

60.0

6

40.0

not recorded at all

7

46.7

8

53.3

does not apply

14

93.3

1

6.7

recorded

8

100.0

collated/reported on

8

100.0

held centrally

8

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

5

62.5

3

37.5

not recorded at all

5

62.5

3

37.5

does not apply

6

75.0

2

25.0

recorded

3

75.0

1

25.0

collated/reported on

4

100.0

held centrally

3

75.0

1

25.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

3

75.0

1

25.0

does not apply

3

75.0

1

25.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

81


Table 52 - Recording the types of international partners / colleagues for unfunded international research: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

79

79.8

20

20.2

collated/reported on

82

82.8

17

17.2

held centrally

76

76.8

23

23.2

held in dept/school/faculty

55

55.6

44

44.4

not recorded at all

73

73.7

26

26.3

does not apply

90

90.9

9

9.1

recorded

14

93.3

1

6.7

collated/reported on

15

100.0

held centrally

13

86.7

2

13.3

held in dept/school/faculty

9

60.0

6

40.0

not recorded at all

7

46.7

8

53.3

does not apply

14

93.3

1

6.7

recorded

8

100.0

collated/reported on

8

100.0

held centrally

8

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

5

62.5

3

37.5

not recorded at all

5

62.5

3

37.5

does not apply

6

75.0

2

25.0

recorded

3

75.0

1

25.0

collated/reported on

4

100.0

held centrally

3

75.0

1

25.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

3

75.0

1

25.0

does not apply

3

75.0

1

25.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

82


Table 53 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfunded international research: by type No Pre

Post

SI/GC

recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply

Count 53 56 53 32 36 51 39 38 36 29 31 42 13 16 12 13 22 20

Yes % 91.4 96.6 91.4 55.2 62.1 87.9 84.8 82.6 78.3 63.0 67.4 91.3 56.5 69.6 52.2 56.5 95.7 87.0

Count 5 2 5 26 22 7 7 8 10 17 15 4 10 7 11 10 1 3

% 8.6 3.4 8.6 44.8 37.9 12.1 15.2 17.4 21.7 37.0 32.6 8.7 43.5 30.4 47.8 43.5 4.3 13.0

Table 54 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfunded international research: by size No Large

Medium

Small

recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply

Count 46 47 44 29 38 50 34 39 35 25 24 36 25 24 22 20 27 27

Yes % 85.2 87.0 81.5 53.7 70.4 92.6 82.9 95.1 85.4 61.0 58.5 87.8 78.1 75.0 68.8 62.5 84.4 84.4

83

Count 8 7 10 25 16 4 7 2 6 16 17 5 7 8 10 12 5 5

% 14.8 13.0 18.5 46.3 29.6 7.4 17.1 4.9 14.6 39.0 41.5 12.2 21.9 25.0 31.3 37.5 15.6 15.6


Table 55 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

79

79.8

20

20.2

collated/reported on

84

84.8

15

15.2

held centrally

81

81.8

18

18.2

held in dept/school/faculty

52

52.5

47

47.5

not recorded at all

73

73.7

26

26.3

does not apply

89

89.9

10

10.1

recorded

15

100.0

collated/reported on

15

100.0

held centrally

14

93.3

1

6.7

held in dept/school/faculty

8

53.3

7

46.7

not recorded at all

8

53.3

7

46.7

does not apply

14

93.3

1

6.7

recorded

8

100.0

collated/reported on

7

87.5

1

12.5

held centrally

8

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

5

62.5

3

37.5

not recorded at all

5

62.5

3

37.5

does not apply

6

75.0

2

25.0

recorded

3

75.0

1

25.0

collated/reported on

4

100.0

held centrally

4

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

3

75.0

1

25.0

does not apply

2

50.0

2

50.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

84


Table 57 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded international research: by country No

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

Yes

Count

%

Count

%

recorded

83

83.8

16

16.2

collated/reported on

85

85.9

14

14.1

held centrally

84

84.8

15

15.2

held in dept/school/faculty

63

63.6

36

36.4

not recorded at all

61

61.6

38

38.4

does not apply

89

89.9

10

10.1

recorded

14

93.3

1

6.7

collated/reported on

15

100.0

held centrally

13

86.7

2

13.3

held in dept/school/faculty

9

60.0

6

40.0

not recorded at all

7

46.7

8

53.3

does not apply

14

93.3

1

6.7

recorded

8

100.0

collated/reported on

7

87.5

1

12.5

held centrally

8

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

6

75.0

2

25.0

not recorded at all

4

50.0

4

50.0

does not apply

6

75.0

2

25.0

recorded

3

75.0

1

25.0

collated/reported on

4

100.0

held centrally

4

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

4

100.0

not recorded at all

3

75.0

1

25.0

does not apply

2

50.0

2

50.0

recorded

1

100.0

collated/reported on

1

100.0

held centrally

1

100.0

held in dept/school/faculty

1

100.0

not recorded at all

1

100.0 1

100.0

does not apply

85


Table 58 - How this information is used: by country Yes

England

Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

Open University

No

N/A

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Is the information used in the RAE submission?

88

93.6

3

3.2

3

3.2

Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?

74

80.4

17

18.5

1

1.1

Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?

72

79.1

18

19.8

1

1.1

Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?

77

85.6

8

8.9

5

5.6

Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?

4

36.4

2

18.2

5

45.5

Is the information used in the RAE submission?

15

100.0

Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?

13

92.9

1

7.1

Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?

11

78.6

3

21.4

Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?

13

92.9

1

7.1

Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?

2

100.0

Is the information used in the RAE submission?

6

100.0

Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?

5

71.4

1

14.3

1

14.3

Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?

5

71.4

1

14.3

1

14.3

Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?

5

71.4

1

14.3

1

14.3

Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?

1

50.0

1

50.0

Is the information used in the RAE submission?

3

100.0

Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?

2

100.0

Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?

2

100.0

Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?

1

100.0

Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?

1

100.0

Is the information used in the RAE submission?

1

100.0

86


Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?

1

100.0

Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?

1

100.0

Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?

1

100.0

Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?

87


Appendix III Questionnaire

1


1


2


3


4


5


6


Ref: DIUS Research Report 08 08 Š Sheffield Hallam University 2008 ISBN: 978 1 84478 996 2

www.dius.gov.uk/research Published by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills


International Research Collaboration in HEIs